THE LONE-NUTTER REFUTATION
[Editor's Note: On JFKresearch.com, a forum for discussion of the death of JFK, some participants who affirm the "Oswald-was-a-lone-nut" have made it a practice to repeatedly post as though they held rationally defensible views. This "challenge" demonstrates this is not an even remotely rational stance.]
Recent threads have illustrated the tendency of lone-nutters to simply take their position for granted as though it were obviously true. If it were true, of course, then the "magic bullet" hypothesis--that a bullet entered the back of the
President's neck, transited his neck without hitting any bony structures, exited
his throat right at the knot of his tie, entered John Connally's back, shattering a rib,
exiting from his chest, damaging his right wrist and then entering his left thigh--has
to be true. If the "magic bullet" hypothesis is false, then THE WARREN
REPORT (1964), THE HSCA REPORT (1979), CASE CLOSED (1993), and every
other position that incorporates it must be false. And if it is false, then those who
have rejected that hypothesis--the "conspiracy theorists"--have beenright all along!
So how can we determine whether or not the "magic bullet" hypothesis is true? It would obviously be false if the bullet had not entered the base of the back of the President's neck, if it had not transited his neck without hitting any bony structures,
or if it had not exited from his neck at the level of the knot of his tie. If any of those claims is false, then THE WARREN REPORT, THE HSCA REPORT, CASE CLOSED,
and every other position incorporating it must be false. (This may sound just a bit
repetitive, but I don't want anyone to lose their way in tracking the structure of the
argument as others may have failed to track the trajectory of the "magic bullet"!) So is
this theory true?
The physicians who conducted the autopsy at Bethesda did not actually dissect the neck to determine the trajectory that this bullet is supposed to have taken but
determined it as a matter of "inference". Thus, on page 4 of the autopsy
report, which may be found in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), p. 433, the following
critical sentences may be found:
"2. The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper
right posterior thorax. . . . The missile path through the fascia and musculature
cannot be easily probed. The wound presumably of exit was that described by
Dr. Malcolm Perry in the low anterior cervical region."
Notice, in particular, that the entry and exit locations were matters of "presumption", which Humes defended on the basis of an "inference" drawn AFTER THE BODY HAD
BEEN REMOVED FROM THE MORGUE for preparation for the funeral. After
conversations with Parkland that allegedly only took place on Saturday, he belatedly
realized that the wound to the back must have been the entry for the wound to the
throat as its exit! Also notice that the description of "the upper right posterior thorax",
which is the upper-right portion of the chest cavity, does not quite place the wound
where it has to be if the "magic bullet" hypothesis is true. Yet that is the basis for the
theory!
Fortunately, we have other reports from physicians who were in the position to make the relevant observations, including George Burkley, Admiral, the President's personal physician, who was with the body in Dallas, accompanied it on the flight back, and
was present during the autopsy. According to his death certificate, which has also
been reprinted in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 439, "a second wound occurred in
the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra." Burkley's death
certificate may also be found in Gary Shaw, COVER-UP (1976/1992), p. 65, and in
Stewart Galanor, COVER-UP (1998), Document 8, which both include most of the
evidence that matters here.
The third thoracic verteba, however, is too low to have been the entry location for a
bullet fired from above and behind that could possibly have exited from the President's throat at the level of the knot of his tie. Anyone who may be in doubt should consult
Gary Shaw, COVER-UP (1976/1992), p. 65, which includes a diagram that identifies
that location specifically and, on p. 4, provides a diagram of the trajectory that the
"magic bullet" had to have taken if it entered at the location specified by Admiral
Burkley and exited at the location specified by Commander Humes, which has been
widely ridiculed in the conspiracy literature. So which of them is right? Did the bullet
enter high enough for thehypothesis to be true?
Many books on the assassination, including Josiah Thompson, SIX SECOND IN
DALLAS (1967), Gary Shaw, COVER-UP (1976/1992), and many others have observed
that damage may be found in the President's shirt and jacket that substantiate the
lower entry point. Photographs of the shirt and jacket may be found, for example, in
Thompson's SIX SECONDS, p. 48, Shaw's COVER-UP, p. 64, and many other sources,
including Stewart Galanor, COVER-UP (1998), Documents 6 and 7. As Gary Shaw
observes, moreover, the claim that the shirt and jacket were bunched (as described on
his p. 65) appears to be rather difficult to sustain.
One reason is that photographs and films taken during the assassination do not show
the jacket to be bunched-up as this defense requires. More importantly, however, other
evidence from observations of the wound itself provide independent confirmation for the
location supported by the shirt and jacket. This includes the diagram drawn by J. Thornton Boswell, Hume's assistant, which may be found in Shaw's COVER-UP, p. 62, and in
Galanor's COVER-UP, Document 5, which, like the shirt and jacket, show the wound
to be about 5 or 6 incles too low to be the point of entry for a bullet that exited at the
President's throat.Boswell's diagram, moreover, was verified by Admiral Burkley!
Another diagram was prepared by FBI Special Agent James W. Sibert, who observed
the autopsy at Bethesda, and may be found in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON
(1997), p. 100. It plainly demonstrates the paradox confronted by the "magic bullet"
hypothesis even in relation to its most elementary assumptions, since the back wound
is clearly too low to be the entry point for a wound that exited from the throat, if the
bullet was fired from a position above and behind the President. So, unless Lee Oswald
was actually, say, firing from inside the trunk of the Lincoln limousine, this trajectory
cannot be sustained. It also shows that Warren Commission diagrams of this wound
are hopelessly inaccurate. Sibert attended the autopsy with another agent, Francis X.
O'Neill, subsequently submitting a report of their observations at the time. Dated 9
December 1963, it reads, in part, as follows:
"Medical examination of the President's body revealed that one of the bullets
had entered just below his shoulder to the right of the spinal column at an
angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward, that there was no point of exit, and that
the bullet was not in the body."
A excerpt of their report, which includes this passage, may be found in Mark Lane,
RUSH TO JUDGEMENT (1966), Appendix IV. Further discussion of this wound,
including diagrams, may be found in Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT
(1993), pp. 78-79.
No doubt, the estimate of the degree of downward trajectory as falling between 45 and60 degrees should not be taken to be exact, since it was done by an autopsy physician
usinghis finger to probe the wound! A precise determination of the location from which
the missile had been fired would also require knowledge of the position of the body in
the vechicle, of the vehicle in the street, and of the inclination of the street as relevant variables. But this report nevertheless clearly substantiates that the wound was at a downward angle, that there was no point of exit, and that the bullet was not in the body.
As though this evidence left any room for doubt, reconstruction photographs demonstrate that the location they support was in fact TAKEN TO BE CORRECT for
the purpose of reenactment of the crime. A photograph from the FBI reenactment, for
example, may be found in Galanor's COVER-UP as Document 4. Observe where the
large round white patch is located! And a similar photograph even appears on the inside
front cover of THE NEW YORK TIMES Bantam paperback edition of THE WARREN
REPORT (1964)! The best of all is a photographof the author of the "magic bullet"
hypothesis, Arlen Specter, using a pointer to demonstrate the trajectory that the bullet
had to have taken, when the marking patch is visible several inches below his hand,
which may be found in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 34!
Readers who are unfamiliar with this case may wonder how in the world, given all of this evidence, THE WARREN REPORT (1964) could have concluded that JFK was hit
at the back ofthe base of the neck. But, thanks to the good work of the ARRB, we
know the answer to that question. Gerald Ford, a member of the commission, had the
description of the wound changed from "his uppermost back" to "the back of his neck",
a discovery that was among the first of the ARRB's important releases, which came in
time for me to include parts of THE NEW YORK TIMES (3 July 1997) story in
ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 177. THE TIMES considered it important enough to
print on p. A8, insuring that most readers would miss it!
Under these circumstances, it appears to be "piling on" to note that David W. Mantik,M.D., Ph.D., has now demonstrated that no bullet could have entered the President's
neck at the location alleged and exited at the location alleged without impacting cervical
verteba, as Galanor's COVER-UP, Document 45, and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA
(2000), pp. 3-4, explain. Nor does it appear necessary to add that Malcolm Perry, M.D.,
who performed a tracheostomy in a vain attempt to save the President's life, described
the wound to the throat as an entry wound three times during a press conference held
at Parkland beginning at 3:16 PM, a report that was widely broadcast over radio and
television that day--the transcript of which may now be found in ASSASSINATION
SCIENCE as Appendix C--and even published in THE NEW YORK TIMES (23 November
1963), p. 2, which may also be found in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 15, and which
has been confirmed by Charles Crenshaw, M.D., in his work and diagrams that may also be found there. So to simplify the challenge for lone nutters, let me merely ask:
WHERE DID THE BULLET THAT HIT THE PRESIDENT IN THE BACK ENTER?
Because if it was not at the base of the back of the neck, then THE WARREN REPORT
(1964), THE HSCA REPORT (1979), CASE CLOSED (1993), and every other work
taking it for granted cannot possibly be true. It follows that the throat wound and the
damage to John Connally had to have been caused by separate shots and could not
have been inflicted by a lone assasasin. But if this most elementary assumption upon
which they are based is false, then it is not conspiracy theorists who have been
indulging in flights of fancy in support of their untenable hypotheses but lone nutters!